Misplaced Pages

User talk:Miskin/Archive 5

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Miskin

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sharkface217 (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 12 May 2007 (→Barnstar: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:58, 12 May 2007 by Sharkface217 (talk | contribs) (→Barnstar: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

300

Thanks for helping to keep the film article clear of any original research. I was wondering, though, are you opposed to including experts' reviews of the film in terms of historical accuracy or lack thereof? Your talk page comments seemed to indicate that based on the film's lack of claim regarding any attempt for historical accuracy. Just wondering if you would be receptive to a review like the Apocalypto one I mentioned in response to the film's reliability. I'm not seeing that as a way to satisfy the dozens of editors who have vandalized or added their original research to this article to support their feelings for this film. I think that a neutrally written section can be created to answer the objective question, "What are the differences between the film and the actual event? Are there any similarities?" This would be done solely between the film and the event, of course -- the comic book won't get into the fray, and the article already states that it's a faithful adaptation of the comic book. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. I think it's too early to judge what reactions this film would receive, especially on an international level. I've noticed the so-called US vs. Iran factor, but it's possible that despite what I consider a silly analogy, the film may garner exactly that kind of reaction even from the most respected sources. In addition, I think we have to be wary that most people may not be aware of the "adaptation" factor, that there's more than just a "cool" style added to the Battle of Thermopylae. I think if any issues were to emerge in the future, the only reliable sources would be those that directly critique the film. It'll be interesting how to gauge the reaction of the film because very often the so-called vocal minority can sound like the majority. "THIS FILM IS RACIST" stands out more than, "I know this film isn't accurate historically, but I enjoyed it nonetheless." Things to watch out for, I suppose. We'll find out in a week. Probably should put together some standardized messages to drop off to people who aren't in line with the policies. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VI (II) - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sparta

I have a POV-pusher who tried to erode Aspasia. I have to deal first with him, but then (probably tomorrow) I'll definitely have a close look in the article.--Yannismarou 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.5, 0.7

Hi Miskin, thanks for getting in touch. Actually, Version 0.5 is now closed - we expect to have the CD available later this month (I have been busy recently with that, offline). However, we are starting to work on the next release, Version 0.7, and we do need reviewers (yes, sign up for the review team and make a start). I plan to get Version 0.7 moving again in the next few days. Or perhaps you are interested in helping out with the 1.0 project in general? Here are some pages that may help you:

Let me know what you decide. We could really use some help right now! Thanks, Walkerma 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Sparta

Hi, Miskin. I got over my laziness and found Anton Powell's book on Amazon, and fortunately I was able to search to the cited pages. I can't recall the last time I discovered a more fraudulent use of sources. I suggest that you look at it yourself, it will be edifying. Suffice it to say that what Powell says is that (as you and I already knew full well) Lycurgus was successful at promoting chaste pederastic relationships. In the same breath Powell mocks claims of pederastic chastity by assimilating them to communist Chinese claims of the non-existence of adultery in communist China. The article claim on Aristotle (Spartan devotion to women) IS supported by the text on that page, but in the next page Powell resolves the conflict between Plato's views and those of Xenophon and Aristotle by resorting to an analysis of details, which, in his words, reveal that "references to particular homosexual attachments of Spartans are conspicuous even by Greek standards." The editor who massaged that text in the article deserves a rebuke. What do you propose to do? Haiduc 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry to be so vehement, we all make mistakes. A better solution, if you agree, is to keep the citations and modify the text to agree with Powell (since his interpretation is pretty much the presently accepted one and I have no problems with it.) Haiduc 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Thermopylae

Hello Miskin,
Long time no talk my old friend. Sorry for a bit of a late response, but this post is to the comment you had made earlier on the Thermopylae Talk page regarding how some keep putting "Pyrrhic" back. Well ever since that one anon left, I think there is only one user recently who has been advocating that, Lankybugger. I spoke to him, and he is a far more sensible fellow than that anon "ELV". He talked to me on my talk page and we reached the consensus that it wasn't a pyrrhic victory. I had earlier made a post in the Thermopylae talk page why it couldn't be classified like that, but he initially missed it, once he went over it, he seemed to agree. So I think this problem is rectified.
On another note, have you noticed the incredible amount of vandalizing on that page as of late, I wonder if it has anything to do with the attention spurred by 300 Hmm... LOL. See ya around.--Arsenous Commodore 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

Slavery was banned in the Persian Empire, so there couldn't have been any "slaves" in Xerxes's army. --Mardavich 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Many conscripted soldiers don't fight wars on their own free will, that doesn't make them slaves. Nobody "owned" anyone in Xerxes's army, there were no slaves. Please remove that POV assertion, or provide a reliable source that explicitly uses the term "slave". --Mardavich 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NN on ANI

Hi. A number of uninvolved editors looked at the issue, and they did not see any WP:POINT, and WP:ATT violations are not blockable offenses I think. Besides, most actions of NN was on the talk page, and not on the article page. There are lots (and LOTS) of talk pages filled with circular discussions, this is no grounds for blocking. Also, please remember, it takes more than one user to make a circular discussion, and while I did not look into your comments on Talk:Sparta in detail, on ANI it looks like you are also going head to head with NN. On this, User:Domitius behavior is even more concerning, and his stalking complaints are not helpful at all, but rather shed a bad light on him (her?). Overall, to me it looks a bit like a group of Greek editors have their view and resist other views. You are of course free to list further comments on NN's behavior on WP:ANI, but I am not sure what you want to achieve with it, and I would recommend against it. In the current discussion it seems NN's behavior is no cause for offense, except maybe for too long talk page comments (but then, a whole lot of editors would be guilty of that). Since this is more of a content dispute than an editor dispute, you may use some related approaches on WP:DISPUTE. E.g. on the superpower issue, that can easily be voted on. I hope this helps, even if i feel this won't satisfy you. Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Cool user page! -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Miskin. Woah, talking about looong messages! Anyway, Dispute resolution through discussion is a long and difficult process, and usually involves one or more editors that are difficult to deal with or to convince. From what I have seen, NN's discussion style may not be easy, but is definitely not anything out of the ordinary (and yes, i did NOT read the entire Sparta talk page). Believe me, I had worse. Much worse! (Danzig/Gdansk anyone?) That is just one thing we have to live with. Also, from his edit history, it does not look like edit warring besides a few reverts. Overall, this is definitely a dispute, but nothing out of the ordinary. It also seems, NN was reaching a consensus with some editors before he was blocked. The ANI discussion was rushed, and I am surprised that it was closed already. I would like to point out that I tried to slow down some rushing editors and proposed to wait for Yanni's response. Overall, Yanni seems to be a good admin, but this block was not supported by policy. Feel free to start a new discussion if you want. My apologies if i came across harsh. Anyway, I gotta go, best wishes and happy editing - Chris 73 | Talk 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: The diff you provided is a 3RR warning/notice, not an invitation to revert. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than take up anymore time, I'm going to simply second what Chris73 said. You have done a lot of work on the Sparta article, but that doesn't necessarily give you more say in it than NN or anyone else. I'd recommend reading WP:OWN again. I also agree that Yannismarou seems like a very good contributor, but he did make a mistake with that block. AniMate 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could understand WP:ATT and WP:V. It's quite simple, the fact that one does not happen like something which is sourced does not give a right to remove it without, at the very least, citing a counter source. Why people continue to have trouble with this mystifies me.--Domitius 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you, and that certainly wasn't my intention. I'm not being hard on Yannismarou, in my opinion. He made a mistake, and he should have apologized for it... which he did. I'm not asking for him to be recalled, I'm not asking for an RfC to be filed for his behavior, I'm not asking for an ArbCom case to be filed. All I ever asked was for him to apologize for a bad block... which he did. I'm not exactly taking sides, and when it comes to the content dispute I honestly don't know who is right.
You've been here longer than I have, so you should know how to follow the steps of dispute resolution. You've spent so much time bickering on the page that I think it's time to try another tactic. Go to the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome for some input or file an RfC on the content issue.
NN just left a message on my talkpage saying the matter of the block is closed and he's not going to be responding to anymore posts about. Great. I hope you abide by that, and continue focusing on getting the content issue resolved. If you feel his behavior warrants a closer look, by all means ask for some outside input on that at AN/I or any venue you deem appropriate. AniMate 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Last thing. Yannismarou wasn't "blacklisted." He's not in trouble. He's not banned from the article. He abused a power he had to silence someone in a content dispute that didn't have the same power. He acknowledged the mistake. You should too. Admins are held to higher standards than the rest of us.
Finally, you are very focused on rules. Remember, ignore all rules. I'm not sure this is wise of me or not, but reading the article on Sparta and the article on Superpowers, I'm not sure Misplaced Pages's definition of superpower syncs up with your sources definition of superpower. That's my very uneducated opinion, as I have very little background in politics or classics. But seriously, it's high time this dispute moved off of the Sparta talk page. Get it resolved. Get other people involved and move on. AniMate 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditional account of the Battle of Thermopylae

Listen, I know it is kinda difficult to question the traditional account. When we do this it generally leads to the rejection of all types of other things we have accepted (this is why Copernicus and Galileo had such hard times). However, the fact is that we can't even begin to really accept the authenticity of ancient accounts at face value until the Peloponnesian War, and even then they are only occasionally accurate. For example in Roman history the accounts of the Second Punic War are generally thought to be relatively accurate as they take into account the logistical capabilities of the opposing sides and describes the actually difficulties that the generals had in supplying and moving their armies around. Compare this to the Cimbrian War between Rome and a coalition primarily consisting of the Cimbri and the Teutons, even though it took place more than a century after the second punic war the accounts of it are much less accurate and more shrouded in more legend than fact. This is why it appears that the battles of Arausio, Aquae Sextiae, Vercellae all appear to be larger than the battle of Cannae and the battle of Zama combined. When I first started to realize the inaccuracy of the historical accounts that I have been engroosed with for years I was devastated, but I did eventually accept them
You may wonder why smarted and more knowledgable historians then me apparently accept these accounts if I am correct. The answer is no that they are stupid, rather it is because they have to. at a basic level history is the study of written accounts. So in the absence of any reliable figures historians simply provide the only figures that they have. Do you really believe that in a battle between Aram Damascus and the Kingdom of Israel in 846 BC, the two sides could field enough soldiers so that their would be 127,000 casualties on the Aram Damascus side alone? Since the only account of that battle says that that is indeed what happened, historians will give those figures when writing about the conflict.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk • contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

MedCab on Sparta?

I hate to see articles locked down as much as I hate to see two very good editors in conflict. If you're interested I'd be happy to get a case started at the Mediation Cabal, since you seem to have little faith in RfCs and I'm not sure how active the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome is. Regardless of your decision, I think this fighting isn't necessary and doesn't fit on Sparta's talk page. AniMate 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your edits to my RfC, though it's better etiquette to ask first. Mostly I'm alright with it, because after looking at my original request... well let's say I should've proofed it a little better (at the least). If you feel you must continue your confrontation with NN, please do so in an appropriate venue (WP:AN/I or your talk pages). AniMate 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

It's your own idea. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg agrees with me and you can participate in a discussion in talk page.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be there when I can, just stop flooding this page with chucks of text please. Miskin 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

  • "What do you care about this topic anyway? Does it have to do with the fact that Domitius is involved here?"
  • A. Garnet has never shown interest in the particular article, nor in any related article, nor has he ever proved himself knowledgeable on the topic. He appeared soon after he had a conflict with Domitius in a different article, Cypriot Civil War I think, where he received a block. And now, there you see him, pretending to be a completely neutral participant."

Please don't make any more comments similar to the above ones. Remember to discuss only article content. Thank you. Khoikhoi 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi I said what I said in relation to the dispute at hand, there wasn't any intention of offending or belittling the other editor. Just expressing a pov. But I'll keep that in mind and avoid doing so in the future. Miskin 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Khoikhoi 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to Calgacus, there is no ongoing dispute and he wants you to "leave him alone". Maybe it would be best if you stop leaving him messages, unless it's really important. I think the best to do right now is for you to ignore him and him to ignore you. An apology would be nice, but it's not really necessary. I've already talked to him about making personal attacks. The last thing we want is for someone to get blocked, and I don't think he's going to insult you anymore. Khoikhoi 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thermopylae

I did not do most of these edits but I am willing to help and have added a few. There is a fast loading Herodotus here and a fast loading loading Diodorus here Ikokki 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User subpages

Are all these subpages really relevant to Misplaced Pages? You may want to consider deleting some of them. The Jade Knight 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Sparta/Superpower

If you mean the last proposal, I support this one, too (and I am neither Turkish nor Persian nor Greek). A RfC by default involves a lot of other editors coming in and making comments. (As suggested above, read WP:OWN). On a related note, I am also not sure if the use of Superpower for the Persian Empire is proper, but i don't want to solve this problem beyond giving my 2 cents if necessary. As for 2c: "A biased editor instigates/creates a ruckus, gains sympathy, and by unorthodox, brute-force methods other non-neutral editors (group of Iranian and Turkish) become suddenly the authorities on the topic and protectors of the article.": I don't agree with this summary, looks to me like you're upset, and being upset is a bad time to edit Misplaced Pages in general. Overall, the whole consensus generating process is not pretty (on both sides!), but not unusual for Misplaced Pages. Not sure if this helps, but I wanted to respond. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Did you get my reply to your latest e-mail? If not, perhaps you should check your spam filter. the wub "?!" 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits Again

Hiya, I wanted you to know that I had to revert your recent edit to 300 (film), and wanted to explain why. To begin with, the Greek critic's name is in fact Demitris (as cited in other places) and not Demitrios. As well, the other part "According to some opinions" replaced fairly clear writing with less clear - ie, for the "some". Hope that explains things. Of course, if you disagree with my edits, I welcome you to discuss them on the article's talk page. Cheers! Arcayne 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the Greek nicknaming protocol, but as he published the review under his nick, then it should be included as such, and not his formal name, which may not be his professional name. Likewise, while I think the aim was to aim for NPOV, the effort was not as successful. Perhaps you could bring up the NPOV issue in the Discussion Page, and we can address the problem together? Arcayne 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have been a dick in my earlier editing history, and all it did was make me upset...over something I do for free. Meet the definition of both stupid and pointless. LOL. So, while i occasionally have to get oven mitts to get a handle on my temper, I am trying hard to be a better editor and Wikipedian. Thanks for the compliment. :) Enjoy your wikibreak. Arcayne 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am noticing that you are making some edits that might be seen as POV again. I realize its probably hard to remove your editing self from your heritage - I would, too. However, you need to address the fact that the Iranian outcry and Persian depictions cannot overpower the article. If you have vhanges to make, and by thinking about them consider that they might be a problem for the other editors, you could save yourself a lot of time and frustration by discussing those edits with your peers in the Discussion Page. If you look over the other discussions, very little is done without some sort of concensus. I have seen some of your edits int he past, and they are usually really good (for example, most have missed the Greco-Persian thing - I did, and I took a Second in Near-East History). Work with us, and things move a lot smoother. You may not get what you want all the time, but you ge tthe chance to discuss your POV ahead of time, and not after you've been reverted here and there. Just some advice. Arcayne 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and perhaps you might want to take a look at historical fantasy However, if you actually think that Xerxes employed giants and mummy-faced persons in his army, or was a 10-foot-tall giant himself. then perhaps you should oppose the idea of fantastical elements in the story. Maybe you are working from a different definition of the term than I am.
As for the nationality of the scholar, I fail to see how it comes into play here. If he was Irish or Pakistani or Japanese, would his words have any less weight? Arcayne 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You introduced a number of very interesting points, and I am hoping that I can address each of them to your satisfaction, Miskin. If you will recall, I have been fairly intolerant of the POV-pushing and politicization of this article, and I consider myself rather vigilant in smiting it wherever and whenever I see it. While idisagree with the Daryaee statements, I think he is addressing them from a point of view of his occupational specialty, and not of his ethnic background. I think that if you disagree with his statements, it is not OR to use the source material of Herodotus to dispute them. As the Daryaee statements are verified and RS, they are open to dispute as to their authenticity. That Herodotus was himself quite biased on the part of the Spartans is clear (being part of the Classics doesn't remove ancient authors from charges of bias, and Simonides, Aecshylus and Herodotus were all terribly biased).
As Daryaee is addressing history, it is clearly in our best interest to refute it historically, To address the matter by inserting their ethnic origin inferring their partisanship is the very picture of POV, to my reckoning. The mentioning of Greek ethncicity is to state that the reviewer was reviewing for a Greek newspaper. I don't really think it belongs (as the sentence can be re-worked to simply denote that they were writing for a Greek newspaper). That said, a representative for the Iranian government needs to be mentioned as such, as the source of the noteworthiness is the fac that a member of a government is commenting.
As for the arguments of historical fantasy, I truly understand your points there, and must confess that I was a little surprised at your suggestion that the application of the historical fantasy descriptor was in fact POV-pushing. The comparison between Alexander and 300 is not a valid one, personally. In the former movie, they dealt with all mamer of opponents, but I don't think that 12-foot-tall giants were amongst them. Neither were there any horror-faced Immortals (and I refer to the face under the masks). Xerxes is portrayed as a literal giant of a man (the tallest man on record was only 8'11, and that is withmodern nutrition). As far as I know, neither Rodrigo Santoro nor the actor portraying the misshapen warrior were nearly that tall.
These alterations do not represent a simple, point of view alteration to the events; they represent an intention to add fantasical elements into a historical narrative. That it is accomplished by Dilios is immaterial. There were no such elements utilized in Alexander. The usage of fantasy elements in a historical narrative fits the criteria of historical fantasy. It is arrived at from a point of reason, and not partisan sentiment. Frnakly, I am a little surprised at the accusation being leveled at myself. Arcayne 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Daryaee Statements

I remember you mentioning that the Daryaee statements were contradictory to Herodotus' account. Could you tell me how they do so? I want to get your viewpoint on this. Arcayne 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

Can you please explain reason for Greek name reversion? Dr.K. 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to explain. Separate article on Thermopylae, should have known. Dr.K. 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Nobody was trying to delete the info Miskin, I only said that the current title was a fork. I put in my nom "Merge (if possible) any relevant content to Cyprus dispute" - Surely you must see that the expression "Turkish settlement" is not used in the English language? Merge the content - this issue is already talked about in the Cyprus dispute, right? I have the feeling that it is only because it was a Turkish editor who proposed the AfD that some of the delete votes are coming: that is really not cool. Can you seriously tell me that the expression "Tr settlement" (not settlers) is used in the English language? I really had thought that this was a non-issue.. And the idea of seeing the two AfDs in someway related is not correct either. Why do I have the feeling that there is an assumption of bad faith and distrust? It is about having the most efficient encyclopedia as possible.. cheers Baristarim 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiction / history contretemps

Hi, Miskin, actually when you attempted to respond to my proposed solution at 300 you ended up responding to Arcayne's ("fictional retelling"). My proposal is this:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a work of historical fiction about the Battle of Thermopylae.

I've reposted it again at the bottom of the "fictional account" page.

I don't think there's any getting around the fact that the Miller work is a novel, which draws heavily on the historical sources, but also introduces a number of elements in the interest of entertainment. As you've been the most vociferous opponent to any use of the word "fiction," I wonder if you'ld mind weighing in on this one. Thanks, --Javits2000 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: "And no Arcayne, I had sincerely never thought of those priests and mummy-faced attackers as anything but deformed individuals."

Dude, I am never coming to your house! lol :D Arcayne 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We've now gathered six options from the past week's discussion. Would you mind having a look and weighing in as to which would be acceptable, and which you'ld prefer? Thanks, --Javits2000 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Miskin, thanks for weighing in ; i've read it and briefly responded (although you might think I'ld have better things to be occupying myself with on Maundy Thursday...) In any case, I understand your concerns, but two quick points; Islam, I think, has nothing to do with it, rather Iranian nationalism, which has always been more powerful than religion. And I really do not believe there's any danger of implying that Thermopylae never occurred in any of the present proposals. The best parallel I can think of is Joseph and His Brothers, which is based on Genesis, but is 1500 pages long. Likewise, Herodotus's account of Thermopylae takes all of 5 minutes to read (maybe 30 if I'm slogging through the Greek); whereas the film is two hours long. What fills in the space in between, is what I'ld call "historical fiction". Best, --Javits2000 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you've got me on Gladiator! Although my immediate reaction is to say that that's just wrong. Still, I can see why the versions w/o any description of genre would be considered more neutral; and for that matter, I also have a general problem with the logic of Misplaced Pages, according to which passionate response on "controversial" topics is somehow converted into a truth claim (or a "legitimate POV," or what you like). For the moment let's wait and see how this shakes out. The thing with passionate responses is that they tend to lose their fire after a week or so. --Javits2000 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was bout to ask you to clarify which of the choices you were going with, but then I read the back and forth between you and Javits (damn - had not thought of using 'utility' in that context - nifty). I do see your point, as well. If you have a different crafting, what would you say? 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

300 Talk

Hey, buddy. I appreciate you coming to my defense and all, but it isn't just them that need to address civility. I know what you are talking about in the Discussion, and I feel your pain - truly I do - but telling Mardavich et. al. off on anywhere bu their talk page is just going to land you in hot water. I would like to to suggest that - your point having been made, you withdraw those posts that directly address Mardavich. They will still be inthe edit history, but you can remove a post that Mardavich's pride will require him to respond to it, further disrupting the page. By removing them, and maybe apologizing for making it personal in the Edit Summary, you will deflate any argument he or any of his friends will make. I want you to to stick around, and not get blocked. That requires you to play a smarter game than them. I hope you take my advice in the context in which they are meant. Arcayne () 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I replied to your latest edit here but have since removed my comment. As I said in the edit summary, there's been much worse said already, and it's both fruitless and absurd of me to attempt to play mommy and treat everyone manners at this stage in the game. I just wanted to let you know in case you were curious why I removed it. Though (not-so-secretly) I agree with you, I'm still a tree hugger at heart. Peace. María (habla conmigo) 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I partake in editing film articles on Misplaced Pages to both learn about the films and share that knowledge with other audiences. Getting into these bureaucratic discussions doesn't really cut it for me, and to be honest, your protest just made me groan and decide to wash my hands clean of the deal. I don't put much faith in the terminology of controversial subjects on Misplaced Pages, so I never really considered the wording in the lead for 300 a big deal. Say what you want, but I'd rather treat editing as a learning process rather than a quarrelsome process. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite indifferent. I thought that the creative licensing should've been noted, so I'm in disagreement with the neutral approach that you were suggesting. But I really don't want to fight tooth and nail for that kind of result; it's not worth it to me, for reasons I've already explained. The article itself seems to cover the appropriate points made by various sides in regard to the film, so to quarrel over the lead... isn't fun. I added my $0.02 where I could, but you'll have to excuse me for not desiring to get entangled in a heated debate to make that kind of point. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

AN/I Incident

You have been reported for your remarks on 300 by Agha Nader. I wasn't sure if anyone had let you know. Arcayne () 17:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on talk page

Hello, I actually did contact the wub for mediation in this matter some time ago, to see if there could be some basis for reconciliation. It's simple: I don't trust you, and you don't trust me. I would like to get this all over with. Following that, the wub has tried to contact you, but he did not get an answer. He commented on this, I believe, here, on your talk page. Iblardi 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's getting rather late here and I have to sleep, but before I go, I want to make a proposal: what if we ask user:the wub again to mediate? I don't want to be in a fight all the time and would like to be able to cooperate and/or interact with other editors, including you, in a normal way. We don't have to be friends, but at least we can try to communicate normally, without a constant sense of mistrust. What do you say? Iblardi 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Please, don't go the race route. I am aware of your concerns about POV editing, but this Iranian stuff has got to take a back seat to the article. There is pointing out POV articles, and then there is suspecting someone simply bc they are Iranian, which is very, very uncool. I know entirely neutral editors who will ban at the drop of a hat over these sorts of situations.
The very last thing we need is a race debate in the article. If that happens, an RfC will occur,and likely ArbCom will step in. No one will happy with those results, as I have seen from prior decisions coming down from them. I know you are concerned about the POV editing; so am I. However, we need to address this matter objectively. Please, do not respond to Agha's ill-thought comment. Let it go, I have sent a message to Agha asking him to let it go and not repeat that sort of nonsense. Let's just concentrate on making sure the job gets done in the article. Arcayne () 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, this matter was already taken to An/I before?
Actually, I added the above comment because I know how you can get riled up by people like Agha and the others. I think that you should submit an RfC based upon what you feel constitutes pro-nationalist editing. Agha's comments were very much out of order, but I am guessing you would be inclined to respond to said comments, and they are not on point where the article is concerned. They don't belong there. I did not mean to come down unduly hard on you, Miskin. You should either address Agha's remarks on his page, or address them through a higher source, like the aforementioned RfC.. It simply shouldn't be a topic for discussion in the article's talk page. I hope you understand what I am talking about, but if you have concerns, you can certainly ask me. :) Arcayne () 10:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And your restraint is appreciated. You should also note that the diff you cited was Asiavashj responding to someone being rude to him. Aside from advocationg that petition, he has really demonstrated quite a bit of restraint and politeness before now. You might have just pushed his buttons. I can do that, too, often wthout meaning to do so.
Anyway, thanks for making an effort to let it go and not rise to the bait. Arcayne () 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you need to got he RfC route, I do think that you have a valid case at this point. Itmight resolve a large number of issues all at once. Arcayne () 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

It sure looked like an edit war. Do all editors agree that the issues have been ironed out, or just you two? Jayjg 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

300

And where exactly does Herodotus - or indeed anybody else - show Sparta, of all places, fighting for democracy? The minor divergences from history we need not list. Your list of topoi is summed up by "based on Thermopylae", which IIRC all proposed texts include? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comment

Please do not post uncivil comments as you did here. I am sorry if you didn't understand what I was saying, but that doesn't mean you need to be uncivil. Thanks, --Rayis 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Constantine

Constantine was half-Serbian from his mother's side, and I don't believe that it is irrelevant what one's mother is. I am not making cultural claims, but I believe that if he was half-Serbian, he deserves that his name be written in Greek and Serbian. I don't see how it hurts the article to such a great extent that you have to remove it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The objective view in this case involves not assuming that cultural claims are in any way implied. Generally speaking, there is a relevant reason to include both languages, seeing as how you yourself admited to considering him half-Serbian. POV in this case is removing the translation which is reflecting his half-ethnicity and claiming that it has culturally-oriented motives, which it doesn't. Taking this into account, I am returning the translation. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against it. Glad we could reach an agreement :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Seriously

Hi Miskin. Historical fantasy is actually not too bad of a description. How about a compromise? Something in-between options 1 and 7? Please give me a proposed wording that takes into consideration both 1 and 7. Cheers. --Mardavich 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a solution. NikoSilver 09:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I attempoted this, and Mardavich shot it down less than an hour after I put it up. Of course, more than a few people - Mardavich included - have been trying to slip in #7. Did voting end and no one say so? Arcayne () 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Thermopylae

Hey Miskin. I agree that we should revert to this edit, since it was the last edit we agreed on. The only thing left to do is find out Ikkoki's opinion on it before we can come to an agreement. Jagged 85 01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Contribution of Thespian Monument lost

Hello, it seems that when you restored a previous version, on 26 April 2007, my contributions about the monument of Thespians and some about the monument of Leonidas, they were completely lost. I had made them on 11 April 2007. Can you restore it or should I add it again? Fkerasar 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I just want to know, from a technical point of view, if I have to do something about it or it can be restored. Fkerasar 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently in 300 talk

I'm not sure if you responded to myself, Arcayne, or someone else. If it was me, I just cited with at I thought was a grammatical error and proposed a fix. I don't mean to argue with any of the discussion about using the word fiction, just trying to make sure everything is phrased correctly. Hewinsj 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks for the quick response. Hewinsj 16:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)

Hello. You have reverted multiple times at 300 (film) in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from engaging in edit warring and instead pursue dispute resolution for your disagreements. Excessive reverts are less likely to cause a resolution, since it will make collaboration less likely. Repeat offenders may be blocked from editing if the problem continues. Thanks! Note that this message applies to everyone at 300 (film), and all three users with multiple reverts at the article in the last 24 hours received it. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you made two reverts recently. And also that the article has been protected twice recently due to edit warring, and is in the middle of a perpetual edit war. Two sterile, identical reverts is too much; you're not a new user. I'm not asking you to forgo NPOV, or saying that others' edits are more NPOV than yours, I'm saying that the proper way to resolve the dispute is through WP:DR, not edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. No excuse. Alientraveller 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars

Don't accuse me of "wikistalking" again like you did here, you know perfectly well that Roman-Persian Wars is within my area of interest, and I first edited that article three days ago after I added the article to WikiProject Iran. So please be polite and don't make baseless accusations. --Mardavich 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I had that article on my watchlist since April 25th, I didn't even realize that was you until now, I only look at the diff and the edit, I don't usually look at the editors' names. Anyways, "Greco-Roman world" is not a common terminology but that's fine, can you just change "various Persian Empires" to "various dynasties of the Persian Empire"? --Mardavich 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Err, 'Greco-Roman' is a widely used term when discussing Roman or Greek transitional period history, Just a heads-up from someone with an actual history degree. (and yes, Miskin's page is on my watchlist). Arcayne () 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

What steps are you taking, Miskin? As I mentionmed before, I am in favor of mediation. Arcayne () 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Sassanid Wars

I've done all the editing I can think of. Its all yours.Tourskin 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Romans were still Roman when the Sassanids came. So we must place the wars from 243-343 in either Persian -Roman wars or Byzantines Sassanid wars. Either way, its not historically accurate. Perhaps a "Roman-Sassanid war?" As for the sources, yeh sorry I left that out.

I don't know if you have this book but Battle isn't too bad. Too be honest, I can't really think of other sources. Tourskin 02:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay....pheww....well actually it took only a few minutes but I removed the Anastasian war from Roman-Persian and got rid of everything un-Roman from the article that even a Patriotic Roman should be proud of. But I still haven't sourced it yet, I'll see if I can get to doing it Later. I was hoping that you might do it. Thanks for your Thanks!Tourskin 17:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Last Stand

Out dated source DO NOT have precedence over modern statistics which MOST scholars agree upon.Azerbaijani 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re

Do not use my talk page to make attacks, and accusations. You can't unilaterally split an article and declare consensus. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, you need to learn to be polite and work with other editors. Thanks you. --Mardavich 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the record. ? Miskin 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Record of your violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Instead of throwing around labels and accusations, try to reach a compromise with the other editors. "My way or no way" is not the right attitude to create a collaborative encyclopedia. --Mardavich 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's rather the WP:ATT way or the highway. If you read it you'll find out that articles are not built on editor consensus that you keep vainly invoking, especially when partisan alliances are involved. I just know you too well by now to let pages such WP:AGF affect my judgement. I still find it ironic that after all the revets you have made against me (yes, I do keep count) you dare to accuse me for not AGF. The numbers will speak for themselves when the time comes. In the meantime, I'm only filling you in on the fact that many people are on to you already. You should be thanking me rather than accusing me for delivering personal attacks (which has no basis). Miskin 21:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

Hello again. Having now realized that you now only want modern western sources for particularly Greco-Persian Wars makes me happy. Naturally, I would agree, afterall this isn't the Greek or Persian Wiki, this is the English e. So I have a few suggestions, I understand that you put "Estimates vary" for the warbox, but I guess I have this feeling that a reliable figure in there would be best - don't you? I mean can't we just put a ca. 200,000 for Persian strength. This figure is by far the biggest consensus figure. And at least we will have a number in the warbox, after all that's what its for. Furthermore, what is this 20,000 Persian casualties for "modern estimates", I have never seen any modern source advocating this, in fact none of the footnotes do. This is simply Herodotus' estimate, correct? None of the footnote sources also indicate or anywhere in the article content that a mdern western source accepts and argues that 20,000 figure. Shall we remove it as a modern consensus figure and just leave under casualties: 20,000 (Herodotus)? What you think? Oh yes and the Plataea article needs help too, because the consensus for that battle is below 100,000. Including Hellas.Net (which seems to be operated by a Dutch, don't be fooled by the name). Check it out. If your interested leave me a note in my talk.--Arsenous Commodore 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miskin, I recognize that you may have been just overheated in a spur of the moment kind of thing. Thanks for the reply. It's just the last paragraph of the Talk Page in the Persian Gates article under sub category of POV Check, you said after my history brief had no basis, that I was "POV-pushing" and that I "was wasting time." But like I said earlier, think nothing of it. Lets just foget it and call the whole thing an odd misinterpretation.
Back to the issue of Thermopylae, I recognize that modern estimate may have just meant that modern scholars accept Herodotus' figure, however from all the footnote searching and content searching in the article, I did not find mention of any modern western scholar whom accepted the figure of 20,000. Would you agree that the number should be removed as a modern estimate, until a clear mention of a name, book title, ISBN, link etc. is made showing such. Or perhaps I have missed it in the article and you can direct it to me. But I am quite confident it's not there. TTYL. By the way, I have found sources for the battle of Plataea, so once your finished and feel you have time, please give me a note if your interested, I could use your expertise in citing on Wiki. Thanks, bye.--Arsenous Commodore 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Persian Gate

Hey mate,

Just a message of support/advice. I understand that dealing with Dharmender6767 and assorted other ultra-Nationalist is extremely frustrating. The best thing we can do is keep our cool and not sink down to their level. Given we've now got a bunch of other good faith editors involved in the dispute things should work out smoothly. So yeah, take a deep breath and hang in there. --RaiderAspect 04:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your extensive contributions to the Last stand article, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar in appreciation of all your hard work. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


You're quite welcome. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)